Today may be your last chance to make a difference in the Senate amnesty fight. Three votes are scheduled for today with the final cloture vote likely to come tomorrow morning.

Call your Senators NOW toll-free at 888-995-8349. Tell them to vote NO on S.744. The bill grants amnesty first with only promises of future enforcement, and, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it increases unemployment while decreasing wages.

This Amnesty bill is even worse than Obamacare, 1200 pages of pure evil.

Stop Amnesty.

Tell congressmen we dont want ANY bill passed, no matter what they promise. This bill is Amnesty for 30 million illegals, and a 1200 page bill that brings in 80 million 3rd world immigrants. The bill will destroy the U.S. and will turn the USA into a socialist state as is the democrats/Obamas plan.

To call your Member of Congress:
US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121

To locate your Member on-line:
U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov
U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov

Call all remaining GOP members of the US Congress to back the efforts of those fighting back.

Call and say I am calling to ask Congress member ___________ to support Michele Bachman, Steve King, and Louie Gohmerts effort to demand that Speaker John Boehner stop trying to help Obama and the Democrats pass amnesty for illegal aliens. Please sign their petition to require the Speaker to honor the Hastert Rule! If the Senate passes an amnesty for illegal aliens, it will be important that the House refuses to pass any immigration legislation in 2013! Stop the amnesty legislation!

ALIPACs Contact List for GOP Members of Congress....
ALIPACs US Congress Contact List

Remember to call, call, call! Regardless of where you live, call all that you can and get others involved with the calls. Once you call, try to send in a written reinforcement of your message by website,twitter, facebook, fax, or mail.

You can use any argument you wish with the Senators’ staffers — or simply say “Vote NO on S. 744.”

But here are some key reasons the Senators should oppose this bill:

1. VOTING “YES” WILL FOREVER TAR THE SENATOR WITH THE LARGEST OPEN-BORDER/AMNESTY FIASCO IN HISTORY: It repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty by giving work permits and legalization to at least 11 million . . . before any new enforcement, let alone before full implementation of enforcement.

2. VOTING “YES” WILL BE A LONG-TIME SYMBOL OF CALLOUSNESS TO AMERICA’S MOST VULNERABLE, ESPECIALL TO BLACK AND HISPANIC AMERICANS: The bill’s addition of 33 million new potential foreign workers in first decade during a time of high unemployment threatens to collapse the wages of many middle-class occupations and to retard the ability of the working poor to move up to the middle class.

3. Polls show almost NO public support (a) for work permits before full enforcement implmentation, (b) for increasing the flow of foreign workers, let alone the tripling of foreign workers, (c) Republicans who vote YES will face a Republican electorate, the plurality of whom will look for another candidate to support in the next Primary.

4. The Weekly Standard reports that at least five S. 744 supporters do not. The influential publication found that Senators did not know anything about a provision in the bill that would give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire amnestied aliens over citizens and permanent legal residents:

5. John Carney of CNBC writes that the Congressional Budget Office says S. 744 would create “another decade of pain” for American workers. But that doesn’t seem to trouble very many Members of the United States Senate.

6. Instead of discussing the higher unemployment and lower wages S. 744 would mean for American workers, the Gang is “in full horse-trading mode” according to Politico, which also reports (subscribers only) that the entire process has been “mostly via back channels and insider negotiations, with deals reached privately to lock up senators’ votes — rather than amendments adopted publicly on the Senate floor.”

7. Erick Erickson of Red State has a list of quotes from amnesty supporters back when they were running for office — and againstamnesty.

8. And Sen. Rubio (among those quoted by Erickson above) reiterated his belief that the Senate needs to convince the American public to trust it on immigration.

Sen. Paul, on the other hand, wrote “Washington parlor tricks disguised as reform will not fool the American people.”

My two Senators are the filthiest creatures to have ever drawn breath.I'll save my dime for the House vote.Oh,wait! My state's *entire* Congressional delegation is made up of the filthiest creatures to have ever drawn breath.

As Emily Latella would say....."never mind".

11
posted on 06/26/2013 7:07:39 AM PDT
by Gay State Conservative
(The Civil Servants Are No Longer Servants...Or Civil.)

First: It will add up to a net 8.4 million anti-gun voters in the next 13 years or so. This could make comprehensive gun control and confiscation inevitable within our lifetimes.

Second: Victory feeds on itself; but so does defeat. If anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer passes this bill out of the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority, he has already said he intends to bring gun control back by the end of the summer. Obama would emerge from the fight reenergized to take away your guns.

Third: If people get used to having to have the governments permission to get a job  even to clean your house or mow your lawn  it will be a lot harder to fight universal background checks and gun registries.

Fourth: There is the concern that the bill will create a de facto National ID card. In a Saturday New York Times article entitled, Fears of National ID with Immigration Bill, some in Congress have openly worried about the potential for another sprawling data network that could ultimately be the equivalent of a national ID system. Gun Owners of America has long opposed anything that smacks of this because of the danger that such data collection poses to gun owners privacy.

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a cloture motion (which ends debate) on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Gang of Eight's horrifying illegal alien amnesty bill - mislabeled "immigration reform."

The true purpose of this amnesty proposal is to capture future votes for the Democratic Party. Those who do not acknowledge that blatantly obvious fact either suffer from some debilitating mental illness or are working for the other side.

On rare occasions, even the Left admit the objective. Eliseo Medina, the honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and International Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in 2008:

"...If we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have ...even two out of three, if we get 8 million new voters... we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."

The "governing coalition for the long term" refers of course to the "permanent progressive majority" Democrats have fantasized about for decades.

The number of illegals in this country is repeatedly cited as 11 million. This is almost certainly an underestimate. In reality the number is 20 to 30 million or more, according to a 2007 study in Social Contract. Bear Stearns estimated about 20 million in 2005. When amnesty passed in 1986, official estimates were 1.2 million illegals. There were actually 2.7 million - more than double. Within ten years, INS estimated the illegal population had grown to 10 million. It is delusional to believe the number has only increased by another 1 million in the 17 years since. Furthermore, when amnesty passes, the newly-legal aliens will invite their relatives to come, further inflating that number through chain migration.

Herein lies the real reason Democrats are slavering for this amnesty bill to pass and are tickling themselves pink that there are Republicans stupid and gullible, (or corrupt) enough to help them realize their dream. And make no mistake, an increase of 30 million in the Democrat Party voter base will guarantee Democrat majorities in the U.S. House, Senate and Presidency for the foreseeable future.

Despite the impossibly bizarre belief by some Republicans that amnesty will make illegals "like us," a high level Congressional source recently acknowledged to me that passage of this bill will spell the end of our Republic and that we literally have only weeks to stop it. Despite House Speaker John Boehner's somewhat ambiguous assurances, this bill is likely to get a vote in the House.

The original Gang-of-Eight bill was really bad, as became readily apparent quite quickly. The overtly fraudulent Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment was offered as a fig leaf to reassure fools that the original bill -- which already promised in-and-of-itself to enhance border security - would actually enhance border security. But in reality it makes things worse. The amendment:

Legitimizes illegal immigration: Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness... They cannot do that legally under current law!

Has no requirement to deploy technologies: The Corker amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security full discretion as to how technology would be deployed, or whether it would be deployed at all.

Has no fencing requirement: Similarly, building a fence is left to the discretion of DHS. (Note: since a fencing law, with money attached, passed years ago, and has been blithely ignored by the Obama administration, the amendment simply codifies Obama's open defiance of current law.)

Increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty - favoring illegal over legal immigrants.

Under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion. (The Gang-of-Eight claims the bill is fully funded by immigrant fees).

Delays promised hiring of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents until somewhere between 2017 and 2021.

Republicans (and red state Democrats) used to tell voters amazing things about their opposition to amnesty. Then they got elected and supported legislation that actually weakens border security and puts people on a path not just to legalization, but to citizenship, before ever securing our borders.

1. Rubio: I would vote against anything that grants amnesty because I think it destroys your ability to enforce the existing law and I think its unfair to the people who are standing in line and waiting to come in legally. I would vote against anything that has amnesty in it.

2. Corker: We need a new immigration policy that reflects Americas values. First, secure this border. Allow people to work here but only if theyre legal. No amnesty. Those employed but here illegally must go home and return through legal channels.

3. Wicker: I agree that illegal immigration is a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, I oppose amnesty as the solution.

4. Ayotte: For the people who are here illegally, I dont support amnesty; its wrong. Its wrong to the people who are waiting in line here, who have waited for so long. And we need to stop that because I think thats where the Administration is heading next.

5. Flake: Ive been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership. Border security must be addressed before other reforms are tackled.

6. Hatch: We can no longer grant amnesty. I fought against the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill because they granted amnesty to 3 million people. They should have to get in line like anybody else if they want to come into this country and do it legally.

7. Heller: I believe it is an amnesty program, a back-door amnesty program for the 12 to 15 million people who are here illegally.

8. Alexander: We cannot restore a system of legal immigration  which is the real American Dream  if we undermine it by granting new benefits to those who are here illegally.

9. Collins: Before 2008 reelection, voted no on McCain-Kennedy amnesty

10. Hoeven: Hoeven said the U.S. needs to secure its borders and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

11. McCain: Complete the danged fence.

12. Graham: Amid withering criticism from his constituents, Graham  who is up for reelection next year  began to argue that it was time to approach the immigration problem in stages. On Thursday, he likened the decisive vote to pass his amendment to having been robbed 12 million times and finally getting around to putting a lock on the door.

13. Kirk: The American people believe our borders are broken. It is a fundamental duty of our government to know who is entering the country, making illegal entry nearly impossible. In the coming Congress, we have an overwhelming bipartisan consensus to restore confidence in the security of our borders  before we pursue other immigration proposals.

14. Murkowski: With regard to undocumented aliens, I believe that those who illegally entered or remained in the United States should not be granted amnesty. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens sends the wrong message and is not fair to the vast majority of immigrants who abided by U.S. immigration laws. Granting amnesty would only encourage further illegal immigration.

15. Chisea: Joined most other Republicans, including opponents of the legislation, in supporting a proposal  which was defeated largely along party lines  that would have blocked legalization until the government can prove U.S. borders are secure. Chiesa said he sees border security as a top priority given his law enforcement background, and has yet to decide his stance on citizenship for immigrants without authorization.

Red State Democrats

1. Pryor: I voted against the presidents immigration plan today because the border security and enforcement measures are inadequate and the bill fails to effectively address the individuals who are already here illegally. Pryor says its time for changes, Its time for a new approach. I advocate that we strengthen and implement the enforcement measures in this bill and show we can fully enforce immigration laws.

2. Tester: He wants secure borders and no amnesty for law breakers.

3. Landrieu: Sen. Landrieu is a leader in the U.S. Senate fighting against illegal immigration, Schneider said. She has fought against amnesty for illegal immigrants and to provide more resources for border security. The new NRSC attack is designed simply to mislead voters about Sen. Landrieus record.

4. Donnelly: Eliminate amnesty because no one should ever be rewarded for breaking the law.

6. McCaskill: Claire does not support amnesty. As a former prosecutor, Claire believes people who break the law should be held accountable, both illegal immigrants and the employers who exploit them for cheap labor. Claire does not believe we need any new guest worker programs undermining American workers.

7. Stabenow: Do you support path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? STABENOW: I voted no, because it went too far and cost us jobs. I do think its important to have border security and legal system that is fair and effective. My focus is on our jobs that were losing because of failed policies.

Critics of the Democrat-led immigration rewrite are bombarding Senate offices with thousands of phone calls, and advocates say those calls are keeping numerous wayward GOP Senators from joining the Democrats immigration bill.

Five hundred [calls] yesterday, and right now, theyre just ringing non-stop, said an upset staffer at the office of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who has voted on both sides of the dispute.

Protestors have sent hundreds or thousands of calls to Ohio Republican Sen. Robert Portmans Republican office, a staff member told The Daily Caller.

That vast majority of calls today have been on that [and] weve been getting calls on that for a couple of weeks, said a staffer working for Pennsylvania Democrat Sen. Robert Casey.

The calls have stiffened the spine of GOP Senators who might otherwise bend to pressure from business groups and from influential people in their home state, such as editorial writers and clerics, said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which provides a free phone service for Americans who oppose the massive rewrite.

Our lines sent in hundreds of thousands of calls in the last month, said Beck. The senators spend most of their time with big-time donors, and lobbyists and leaders of special-interest groups, and they dont have much time to spend with voters in their states [so] faxes, phone-calls and emails are virtually the only way that voters can have access,  Beck said.

The Rube’s staff are awfully testy, today. Claiming the Corker amendment will ensure border security, don’t have an answer as to why The Rube has flip flopped on the *no amnesty before securing the border* stance and demanding to know first and last names of callers.

The calls have stiffened the spine of GOP Senators who might otherwise bend to pressure from business groups and from influential people in their home state, such as editorial writers and clerics, said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which provides a free phone service for Americans who oppose the massive rewrite.

The calls [to Congress] are going our way and if the bill can be delayed another week, it probably wont pass, Gheen said.

Republican supporters of the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill, S.744, have fought tirelessly to convince their GOP counterparts that the 11 million illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the bill won't be eligible for ObamaCare until they receive green cards 10 years down the road. But as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed out yesterday, however, that's not the main "ObamaCare" concern with the bill. Instead, S.744 inadvertantly penalizes companies that hire American workers over amnestied illegal aliens beacuse of the "ObamaCare" tax.

Under ObamaCare, companies with 50 or more employees must provide all low-wage workers with a sufficient health insurance policy. If the company fails to do so, it faces a $3,000 fine per worker that's not tax deductible, so that actual penalty could be as much as $5,000 per employee when you consider the tax consequences.

As Sen. Cruz pointed out yesterday, S.744 grants legal status and work permits to most of the 11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. But the bill also exempts them from ObamaCare, so if an American company with at least 50 employees has a job opening for a low-skilled worker, the company would actually benefit financially by hiring the amnestied illegal alien over a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident who also wants the job.

Here's how Sen. Cruz explained it on the Senate floor on Tuesday:

I would ask you to envision a small business: Joe's Burger Shack. Joe's Burger Shack is owned by a small business owner. It is a series of small fast food restaurants in any given State. It could be my home State of Texas or any State across the Union.

Let's assume that Joe's Burger Shack has 100 employees and that at Joe's Burger Shack, with 100 employees, business is doing relatively well, people are eating more hamburgers, and Joe decides he wants to hire 5 more people. If Joe and Joe's Burger Shack decide they want to hire five more people, if Joe chooses to hire five U.S. citizens or if he chooses to hire five legal permanent residents--five legal immigrants--Joe faces a penalty of $25,000 for doing so--$5,000 apiece right off his bottom line to the IRS. In contrast, if Joe decides instead to hire five RPIs, who came here illegally among those 11 million who are here illegally but granted RPI legalization under the Gang of 8 bill, Joe pays a penalty of zero dollars.

Let me ask a simple, commonsense question. In this instance, who is Joe, the small business owner, going to hire? This bill creates an enormous incentive to hire those here illegally, and at the same time it does it by creating a statutory penalty for hiring U.S. citizens and for hiring legal immigrants. That makes no sense.

-- Sen. Ted Cruz, Senate floor, June 25, 2013

This "ObamaCare" loophole isn't some hypothetical example conjured up by Sen. Cruz. He became aware of the situation when a restaurateur in Texas sent him a letter explaining how the loophole would benefit him as a business owner. (I've edited down the letter, but the full letter can be found in the Congressional record.)

My name is Allen Tharp. Since 1985, I have been the sole owner and CEO of Allen Tharp LLC, as well as the Lion and Rose restaurant chain, and a partner in the Golden Chick restaurants. Our corporate restaurants provide well over 1,000 jobs to fellow Texans, and our franchise restaurants provide many more.

I've been following the current debate over immigration reform very closely and want you to be aware that this bill, coupled with the new ObamaCare legislation, makes it much more affordable for a business like mine to employ Registered Provisional Immigrants than American workers. I do not believe that was the intention of either legislation, but it is the irrefutable effect of both. . .

If the current immigration bill before the Senate, however, is made law, a business could hire Registered Provisional Immigrants instead of U.S. citizens and avoid triggering ObamaCare regulations and fines.

Hiring RPIs over American workers, from a purely economic point of view, would be the best thing for my business. . .

Mr. Tharp wrote that he doesn't think taking advantage of the loophole is the right thing to do, and he likely won't, but he's more concerned about his competitors.

It's unlikely that the loophole will be closed up in the final hours of the Senate's consideration of S.744, so it's just one more reason to oppose the bill. Not only will the bill increase unemployment and decrease wages for American workers, but it will also provide an incentive for companies to hire amnestied illegal aliens over U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA

The calls have stiffened the spine of GOP Senators who might otherwise bend to pressure from business groups and from influential people in their home state, such as editorial writers and clerics, said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which provides a free phone service for Americans who oppose the massive rewrite.

The calls [to Congress] are going our way and if the bill can be delayed another week, it probably wont pass, Gheen said.

Tell them to stop all Amnesty or immigration bills.they are all trojan horse bills. some will promise border security that will never be enforced anyway. but in the bill will be the virus:

at least 3 ways to destroy the USA

1. amnesty to 30 million illegals and chain migration.

2. Amnesty forever to ANY foriegner in the 3rd world. all he has to say is he’s seeking political asylum .there are 6 billion poor in the 3rd world . and this bill will allow any of the to come here , all they need is to get on a boat.
3. many more work visas for many occupations

Bachmann explained it . The House will write a border security bill only . then in conference the senate will add the virus and then bring it back to the house. then the conservatives won’t vote for it but democrats will all vote for it so only need 10% of republicans to pass Amnesty and the virus that will destroy America. so any bill at all will be added the virus . so best thing is for Boner to not let any immigration bill at all come out of the House. that is the only hope . call boner and the House

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.